Fergie: I Like To See Green and Gold Scarves

“There are fans’ protests toward Glazer, but that is no trouble to me, as there is no interaction with the team and the sport level,” said Ferguson. “Today, protest has become a reflex. Anyway, I like to see the yellow and green scarves. The fans love their club and they are worried. I don’t have the same worry. I am only focussed on the team.”

143 Comments

@AlphaRS
"In regards to season ticket prices for clubs with serious ambitions. What about the season ticket prices for Real Madrid and Barcelona?In regards to season ticket prices for clubs with serious ambitions. What about the season ticket prices for Real Madrid and Barcelona?"

Real and Barca are teams in a very unique situation in the world of Football. What makes them unique is
- They sell their own TV rights and do so at a level that dwarfs Uniteds share of the UK tv rights (Infact I believe its even greater than our match day revenues)
- They are effectivly in a situation where they can spend what they like and at the end of the 5 year presidency everything is pretty much reset
- Presidential candidates not only have to pay a hefty fee to run but have to have enough guaranteed investment behind them to cover the running of the club
- Spanish banks are pretty much forced into giving them money. The Kaka, Ronaldo, Benzema and Alonso deals were for example financed by an Intrest free loan from Santander. Chances are this will never be paid off with all or most of the balance being written off by the bank
- They get immense local and national governmental aid
- The 'Fan Owned' nature means the 'membership' fee they pay for the right to vote for the president helps subsidise ticket prices further. From Spanish nationals they receive around £20mill in these fees (Although when you take the membership into account their season tickets aren't quite the same bargin)

"What are you annoyed about?"
I wouldn't say I'm annoyed by ideally I would have liked the Leveraged amount to be a smaller percentage of the total amount. It is pushing the higher end of things, mind you the leveraged money was cheaper than the Glazer could borrow so its probally the safer amount

Like Yergen it also annoys me that clubs can ignore their finances. When United have spent a lot of money, both as the PLC and now its because as a business we can support it but most clubs can't. This is making the whole football world spiral out of control. Teams should be rewarded for being stable as a business like United are, where as we are punished because average players now have a £30mill price tag

No-one said 'invested in' United. redscots argument is they invested very little of their own money towards buying the club.

No matter redscots thinks the Glazers have invested over 400mill to buy the club and I have provided evidence to show this.

And if you want to talk about ACTUAL investing into the club then Roman and the likes haven't really done this at their clubs. At best they have bought out some of debts owed to other parties which is then being paid back through preferntial shares.

All they are really doing on a day to day basis is letting their clubs spend money the club doesn't have rather than investing anything themselves.

I would actually argue that the Glazers have actually invested more INTO the club directly than someone like Roman has at Chelsea. They have after all chosen to pass on not only the first 5 years of dividends they were due BUT also the final year of PLC dividends which they choose not to take so they have basically reinvested their dividends into the club. (I would add here that the allowed Dividends in the bond documents could be argued to have had these previous ones rolled into it. But allowed dividends don't mean taken dividends so we can't really comment too much on these at this time)

@redscot
You can't post one line because they didn't buy the first 28% of the shares on a single block. All we have are the press releases that they had to make by law whenever they bough a certain amount or exceeded a certain number of shares.

No matter how much you want to sit there and claim my £400mill figure is wrong its not and if you had a slight bit of intellige nce you would be able to look at the links I have posted and confirm my figures.

What you want to prove it is something that can't be given. The share acquisition don't show on the PLC's accounts, the only records that show it are the Glazers private records which obviously no-one outside the Glazers camp. HOWEVER if you can seriously suggest to me how they were able to purchase OVER 200mill worth of shares without SPENDING THEIR OWN MONEY than I would love to hear your wild theories.

@willierednut
Look as I have shown they purchased over £200mill worth of shares BEFORE launching the takeover. They put £95mill into the takeover and had a loans in their name worth £175mill. Now if you think that's very little.

As I keep saying over and over again not liking the Glazers and how they have done things is perfectly fine. I don't think there is anyone who doesn't have concerns about some aspect BUT making things up like is happening and not putting things into a wider context so they are given a fair chance is just making us all look like a bunch of whiney little schoolkids (Or tabloid journalists). Figures, actions and situations need to first be accurate and then they we need to be taking a step back and comparing it to the wider world so we aren't just spouting rubbish due to emotions.

This is where the likes of MUST do themselves more harm than good. They would rather spread lies and fear than deal in facts and try and open a dialoge with the owners about finding a middle ground on 'Fan/Community' issues. They are basically an organisation that the only people who would work with them are people who need them for something like the Red Knights. Even then they use them and give them fancy promises that in reality don't mean much (Such as Golden Shares) and will almost certainly not involved them in any real way.

@AlphaRS
Someone at Chelsea (May have been Wilkins) was saying that the upcoming rules changes are actually already impacting Chelsea this summer and he expects it to be impacting others. Their transfer dealings are having to be done with breaking even being viable in the next couple of years. If he is right then we could see things calm down as the summer goes on. Ofc the problem is that Real and to a lesser extent Barca can keep acting in the same manner without ever risking being barred from Europe due to the Governmental interence/help they get

On your list of things you want to see, the problem is most of its a complete pipe dream, especially in this country where no-one would accept our Banks giving clubs Free money and the Government paying tax payers money to football clubs as happens in Spain. (Imagine the uproar in all the ABU press if HBOS gave United 300mill in interest free loans to buy players. And then down the line just wrote them off. Or if Local or National government bought Carrington off us for many times the value and then paid to build us a new even better training ground elsewhere)

@Daniel
Thats a whole bunch of 'What Ifs'. No matter who owned the club those kind of 'What Ifs' would exists. If any football club falls below a certain level that the whole setup is aimed at providing and then does so regularry then it could be a problem. Even with the debt United is the club in the best overall financial state of all the Premier League clubs.

@ WAKEY not in the mood for your shite tonght, you can spill as much shite out of your keyboard as you like, I will deal with you tommorow.
You are a Prat, that needs a good Scottish beeting, as for calling me ignorant lmao.
Laterz wotch this space

@Wakey
Hello mate. I know about Real Madrid and Barcelona. There are positives to take from the way these clubs are run but there are also things about these clubcs that are unfair on everyone else including other clubs in the Spanish League. Sepp Blatter and Michel Platini have criticised English clubs in the post over many things. The former being an honory member of Real Madrid which is surely a conflict of interests. They do not like the money in English football put in by the middle east, russia, and America, and that English clubs do not have many English players. However it is alright for Real Madrid and Barcelona to be Goverment funded and not having to pay off loans? Also didn't hear anything about Inter Milan not having a single Italian in their starting eleven. That kind of behaviour annoys me somewhat as their is no keeping finances in order as the Government will bail them out. Similar to the banking industry in the UK. The Government bailed them out.
Anyhow more on the subject yes I understand that leveraged buy outs happen, quite often infact, but the amount of debt United are in is on the high side. Again something we finally agree on.

Any half decent player is now in excess of £30 million. Whilst the new super elite are allowed to continue operating in that fashion the cost of transfers, wages, and the cost of keeping a player will keep rising. In the UK the 50% tax rate has also not helped the Premiership. In Spain tax rates are favourable to foreign players. Perhaps the Government doesn't understand that the less top quality players who come here, the less of a profile the Premiership will have, meaning a drop in interest, and ultimately a drop in revenue. But hopefully the new UEFA guidelines will curb this kind of insane transfer behaviour. But at the same time they should deal with Real Madrid and less so Barcelona to ensure it is fair for everyone. I remember when Andy Cole came to United for £7 million and that was seen to be an obscene amount.

The thigs I want to see at United are ideals. I want us to be more than a money making machine. Dont' get me wrong making money is important to the long term success of United and keeping us there and there abouts. But those kinds of ideals should go hand in hand. We can keep the finances happy and we should also do the same for the local community in Manchester. We should be more than just a football club any which way we can.

@Wakey - I'd rather call them "when"s than "what if"s since they're bound to happen at some point. Of course the club could, and probably will, end up as a less succesful one for a good few years at some point regardless of who owns it.

I do understand your argument with the club and team maintaining a certain level and business being planned to suit that and of course if we were to fall below that level it'd be bad for club finances regardless. But being a club burdened by massive debt, bleeding millons of £ in interest and management fees, whíle trying to restructure in order to reach the top again just sounds like an extremely bad, but fairly likely, scenario.

Anyway, how do you measure "financial state" and consider United to be the best? In the short term Chelsea and city are undoubtly better of, though I do not envy them. I am not of the belief that having sugar daddys pop up at every other club is a good thing for English football. But at least they are putting their money INTO it, rather than draining it OUT. Arsenal seem to have a reasonable business plan as well to be honest and should be good for the long term.

Fuck me, some people don't agree with Wakey on here do they? Kudos to him for giving us the other side of the coin. There are a shit load of sheep about where United fans are concerned at the minute. Too happy to beleive the fucking tabloids and abu's.

Chelsea and City are making huge operating losses which clearly points to the fact that that they are living well beyond their means. They have contractual obligations that they have to honour for years to come in the form of player wages, but they have never been able to show the revenue to cover it. This is what I call a poor financial state. They have to borrow money to make ends meet on a regular basis.

They borrow this money from their respective owners who turn the loans into equity and make the clubs look debt-free (btw equity is also debt, but to owners). In reality these clubs are at the mercy of their owners. If/when they decide to call it quits they may be debt-free, but they have a cost structure that is going to kill them, because noone is going to be there to swap their losses for equity.

United have huge debts and commanding interest payments to service them. But the exception here is that United can manage to service the debt without any outside help. Our revenue is enough to cover our costs. We make an operating profit, albeit it can be discussed what the exact operating profit is with regards to the ronaldo transfer etc. As it stands now, we are (and have been so for a while) self-sufficient financially and can carry on like this forever, regardless of ownership. I am not saying we in a risk free situation, though, and I would like us to be less leveraged.

United have a commercial base that is unlike any other club in England (and most other clubs in the world). This is why we don't need a sugar daddy. But we do need to on top of our financial/commercial game as well as on the pitch to be able to compete with the super rich owners.

This is why I see us being better off financially than clubs like Chelsea and City. Of course, all of this can change but we don't know the black swans of the future, do we?

Yeah obviously we don't know for certain BUT the Glazers as businessmen aren't the kind of people who act on a whim. They not only have their long term business plan but also the short term ones will be made much earlier than February/March

Themselves and a few other of the large shareholders had been arguing for a few years before the takeover that the PLC was underpricing tickets by around 50%. This was also mentioned in their initial takeover documentation the same thing.

If we look at things from a business pov the ticket prices seem to be around the market price now. There is apparently still a waiting list BUT its at a realistic level that is enough to cover the natural churn rather than being so obscenely long that you could kill everyone in the stadium and still be able to fill the stadium the next week. As such I wouldn't expect any major changes in price in the coming years, there probally will be some rises but more inline with inflation rather than the double digit rises.

I still think the cost of a ticket really isn't that bad. As I have said already its around the same as rival clubs at the same kind of level as us. £27 to £49 is cheaper than attending a concert (£55 to go see the BEP's at the MEN), cheaper to see a West End play (Mamma Mia costs between 21.60 and 67.50 or Wicked costs from 17.50 to 62.50. The cheap tickets here as well are 'Limited View Discount Tickets' as well), cheaper than Heineken Cup Final next year (£69.20). And hey have any of you ever checked the price of season tickets for American sports (Tampa Bay Buccs cost between $350 and $990 for a season ticket, that TEN games and in the NBA Miami Heat season tickets range from $1075 and $10535 for 43 games). Hey you pay nearly £10 for a cinema ticket or £18 for a Bluray.

Mind you while looking some of this info up to double check I did find it surprising to find out that someone like myself pays the same ticket price for a game as you do. I assumed as someone who isn't a season ticket holder I paid more for the match ticket than you did. Paying 'upfront' for things usually sees you get a discount as its better for those selling the service to have the money upfront but it doesn't seem to work that way with season tickets which just seems odd. Perhaps it would have been better to increase the indvidual match ticket prices more and the season tickets less (Season ticket rises would still be a high percentage as obviously the 20k non-season ticket holders in the stadium couldn't offset the 50k season ticket holders but they could fund a free game for season ticket holders)

Yergen: Well, you pretty much described why I do not envy the sugar daddy owned teams. For the short term, i.e. as long as these owners keep the money tap open, these clubs have an unnatural financial advantage.

And talking about our financial and on field "game", they go hand in hand, don't they? If one of them drops it has a significant effect on the other. Who would sign £200 million pound sponsorship deals with a non-CL playing team? With the debt draining away alot of money, it is just putting an unnecessary strain on both the club's finances and the team. Coping with it as well as we've done the last few years is commendable, but it could easily turn.

"But hopefully the new UEFA guidelines will curb this kind of insane transfer behaviour."

The problem is that it won't impact the likes of Real. And issues have already been mentioned, such a abusing shirt sponsorship could still allow clubs to live beyond their means

"But those kinds of ideals should go hand in hand"
See I don't think a lot of your ideals can go hand in hand with financial success, atleast not in the UK. Alot of them cost a lot of money and bring no or little money in, to fund them money would need diverted from elsewhere be it from player purchases, wages, increases in season ticket prices or the likes. In theory extending the stadium would be the ideal one and might allow some of the other ones due to increased revenue BUT extending the stadium is borderline impossible due to the grounds location limiting development of the South Stand (I suppose maybe more tiers could be added to the other stands instead but its going to look lopsided). Its a real shame that the Railway and the houses are behind the South Stand that make redveloping it unrealistically expensive (Perhaps the Glazers should demand the FA help pay for it to help the 2018 World Cup bid :) )

As for financial state, yergen explains it well but I just want to add a couple of things.

Its a myth that the 'sugar daddys' put money into the clubs. They don't spend their own money on players, they just ok the club to spend money they don't have thus putting the club in debt. The closest they generally get to investing money into the club is when they do debt for equity swaps where basically they pay off 3rd party debts personally and in exchange they take preferential shares in the club which pay out a set amount that pays out no matter the profit or loss made.

And you are right that on field success means increased revenue. Increased revenue doesn't mean increased profits, they are racking up debt left right and centre as the clubs weren't and still aren't profitable enough.

On Arsenel, they are one of the better run clubs. They do have debts and don't have the income generating ability but are responably run. Finacially you would probally put the top 8 in the following order
1) United
2) Arsenel
3) Everton
4) Spurs (They spend a fair bit but are great at getting at keeping the books balanced through sales)
5) Villa
6) Liverpool
7) Chelsea (They have improved recently, you might even move them above Liverpool for next season)
8) City

On the money being drained from us, more of it is made of it then should be. Much of the money can be accounted for as non-cash accounting deductions (Which actually save the club money, for example the clubs paid £89million less in corporation tax than it would have without these deductions), many of the deductions had corrisponding deductions PLC deductions and it ignores some deductions the PLC had which are no longer applicable. We are still extreamly secure and while it could turn its not something that's borderline so it would take more than a blip and it to happen on a number of fronts for it to really be an issue. You can't count it out but then it the same for every club

Well, at this rate every team in the PL will soon have their own sugar daddy. :)

You are talking about the current situation with the tap on for Chelsea and City, but a situation where we don't qualify for the CL. That's comparing a "what if" situation for one party with a current one for the other party. If we look at the current situation for both Chelsea, City and us we're better off. Of course, if we were in a situation where we didn't qualify and the tap was still on for the others I would agree with you. I suppose we agree on the basics of these things, though.

I think the link below will give you an idea of what one of the alternatives to the Glazers is. Mind you, this action does not remove the fact that they are still losing (bleeding) money. So essentially, expect this number to grow. And even if Abramovich did walk away without ever claiming back the money, Chelsea are in big trouble. All because they were owned by a glory hunter.

Most likely, Chelsea are valued too high for anyone to be able to buy them without any sort of leverage nowadays, so even if Abramovich may get his money back through a sale, the next owner will have more debt. Of course, there is also the possibility of a Leeds type of development.

So, what is there to say that another owner for United, Red Knights or not, will not do the same as Abramovich and the Sheiks?

Ferguson obviously has no problem with the Glazers. He could easily have left his job in 2008 if there was really problems behind the scenes- gone out a winner- taken any other job in world football or retired at an acceptable age.

The fact that he remains is great and it shows that the man who cares about united more than any other has not got a major problem with the glazers.

I think you are the mysterious Glazer Family Spokesman but anyhow I just want to make a few simplistic points.

1. The Glazers haven't invested a bean of their own money since the takeover into the running of the club. They have only taken money OUT in management Fees and Loans (which we will never get back). You can't say abramovich etc are the same as they don't invest either, the difference is they are giving interest free loans to their club where as we are paying circa 45m a year for the privelege (NOT) of having Glazer run our club.
2. When I and fellow fans buy our season tickets I expect for that money to be invested in player transfers and retention, stadium and training ground development etc. I do not expect it to be used on over 400mil of interest/fees/loans over the last five years. That was the unwritten contract that existed in Football. That no longer applies at United.
3. The Glazers WILL be using the current (ronaldo) cash flow to pay off a chunk of their PIK debt. That was why they changed the bank debt into the bonds, so they could take more cash out of the club in dividends to pay off the noose around their neck (The PIKS). The bond allows up to 400mil to go out of the club into their pockets by 2017.
4. Fergies current strategy in the transfer market (getting value he calls it) I call it Wigans strategy of buying young and cheap and making sure you can sell on at a profit at a later date. This is a strategy that has been caused by our lack of funds due to our debt repayments/fees etc due to the Glazer takeover. At a time when TV revenue is at its highest and we could have been investing to a much greater degree in top quality players if not for the Glazers. The strategy is doomed to fail your starting to see it last season, not good enough young players and old timers still not replaced with proven premier or european performers.

I challenge you to read those comments and try and argue that everything is honkey dorey and we should all just fall in line behind our wonderful owners!!

While I can appreciate your rhetorical figure I wouldn't say he gets his chair for free. For every season he continues he runs the risk of ruining his reputation. By taking a stand (as it seems) in favour of the Glazers this is even more true. To me, he's got more at stake than the price of a season ticket.

@Bozzer

1. This depends on perspective. As an example, the Glazers have repeatedly opted to reinvest profits back into the club, rather than to pocket it as dividends. While it is technically correct that the loans from Abramovich are interest free, they come with a price as they are swapped for preferential shares. So in the end Chelsea pays anyway.

2. I strongly disagree with the +400 m figure as it contains a mix of cash and no cash items and even things that are not costs. This figure was brought forward by Andersred to further an agenda. I'm not saying I disagree with him regarding his main ideas, but I don't like the propaganda-like methods. It is still possible that your season ticket money will go to player transfers, but right now it has been placed to further the business, so we can be even stronger in the future. That's what the Glazers think, anyway. Even if I disagree, it is still a valid theory.

3. Well, any take over today will have to be financed somehow. But any buyer will think that he/she can further the club in some way or else they won't buy the club (unless they are buying a toy, of course). If you don't believe you will increase the value of the club your better off keeping the cash, so whenever you have a buyer you have someone that sees an opportunity.

4. My interpretation of the strategy is that David Villa will command a hefty fee without any guarantees of success and have no resale value because he is going to be too old to sell. That's sensible. Instead, we should spend that money on someone younger that will have a resale value. We were prepared to pay 30m for Benzema, so obviously it's not the money, now is it?

@Wakey I am sorry but your posts are all over the place, and your logic irrational.
Let me try a different way and you might! get it.
I dont require you to respond in a Gettesburgesque fashion just a simple Yes/No.
Q1 Do Manchester United have a debt of 720 million pounds???.......Yes/No
Q2 Have Manchester United paid in interest and "there" management fees in Excess of 300million pounds during there spell, money from Manchester United profit??? .......Yes/No

1. Any profits that united receive is uniteds money it should be re-invested in the club that's what i was saying about the contract between fan and club you expect the money to be invested in the clubs players and infrastructure but it's not happening is it. The vast majority of it is going to pay interest and fees to the glazers. In the PLC days it was the other way round you knew some money was going out to the shareholders but at the end of the day united was a financially stable club that could compete in the market and keep season tickets low.

2. What aspect of the 400mil do you disagree with?, i'm not a financial expert but I can see over 260mil of interest, 80 odd mil of consultancy fees. That is money as I say could have been spent on keeping our ticket prices low and spending on the club.

3. Uniteds cash flow will be used to pay off glazers own debts!!!!!! Are you saying that's a good thing?

4. If David Villa helps to win us the european cup twice and the premiership twice in his three four year contract I think we would have received 'Value' as fergie would say in terms of trophies and prize appearance money. Let me say if we had bought a top notch player last summer like villa or kept tevez we would have won prem and european cup last season no doubt for me, We were missing just an inch but theres no value, what a load of tosh. If we were working with the transfer strategy of now in 99, we wouldn't have signed sheringham!! As there wouldn't have been value!! As i say what a load of tosh!!

For example, the +400m include rolled up interest on the PIK's. There are a few problems with this. They have not been paid yet, as they are rolled up. This means the interest on the PIK's could still be financed by the Glazers themselves, without touching any dividends from United. To put it in another way, as of the last financial statement, no cash has gone to the PIK's, not to service the debt. The bond might have changed this, but we will see in the next published accounts.

So to me, it is wrong to claim that this is money that has been sucked out of United, because it hasn't yet. Andersred believes that the interest will be paid by dividends from United, and he might be right, but it hasn't yet and there are several other possibilities still.

The rolled up interest amounts to 83m in Andersred's calculations.

Another thing is that the PIK's are on the Glazers' books. This is like what Abramovich has done with Chelsea if you check out my earlier link. The PIK's will never hit United directly. The debt and the interest are the Glazers' responsibility and they can deal with it as they like. IF they choose to use money from United it will affect us indirectly, but they might as well use money from somewhere else.

These things are included in the 400m used by people because it suits an agenda. I am not saying these people are wrong but I dislike it when they play with numbers to put a spin on things.

And I agree with you, if Villa plays an active part to bring us 2 CL wins and 2 PL wins during his stay, he would certainly be worth the money. But that's a big if. He could easily turn into a Veron as well. Last summer we were on the brink of signing Benzema and that would have shut people up, I think. Unfortunately, he chose Real and I think we're better off without him. The same goes for Tevez. We offered him a good deal, but he preferred outlandish wages at City. So it's not the money, I think that's rather evident, but people want to believe it's the money. I'd say Sheringham would have been a perfect player for us today and I'd think Fergie would have found value in him.

I'm also saying that we will have to live with any take over being leveraged. But any take over follows a business plan where the buyer can see value in his investment. There is no value in a football club of United's stature without on pitch success. Therefore, I am counting on whoever owns the club to have a plan that includes spending on the team as well as improving financially. Anything else is just not rational. This plan might be stretched over a longer period than a few years, though. This is where most of my concerns with the Red Knights lie as I doubt they will be able to unite around one single, comprehensive business plan.

I just wanted to use exact figures rather than ball park them so I just looked up a bunch of events that still had tickets available. Those were just the ones I could find with available tickets sometime in 2010.

Yergen dealt with most of your first post so I won't repeat him. However a couple of additional points

POST 1
------------

1) I'm curious as to why you think a Loan won't be paid back.

2) When has all your money that you spend been reinvested into the club. There isn't many of the costs that didn't exist before the Glazers or had another cost to take their place.

AND who says the ticket money isn't being reinvested. Why is it you choose to have the money you spend as being used to pay the Interest when the biggest cost on the books is player wages. Why is it not the improved commercial activities that are paying the interest, improved commercial activities which the Glazers played a part in bringing

3) The thing with the bonds is you can pick any figure and justify that as the amount that the Glazers will take as some of it is profit based. Ronaldos sale skew last years profits as we are unlikely to sell an £80mill player every season but based on that you are looking at something in the region of £210mill nearly £200mill under your estimate. In a normal year the totals closer to £160mill. Due to the fact that they passed on previous dividends even at the £210m figure that works out at £17mill a season which isn't obscene really unless you live in a dream world where football isn't a business.

And at the end of the day we don't know if they will take their entitlement in full or at all. They have passed on all dividends they could have taken while in charge AND the dividend for the last year of the PLC

4) This whole "Buying young players because they are cheap" argument annoys me. I mean seriously have you see fees we are paying for young players. These aren't cheap players.

You buy any player there is a risk. You just have to look at Veron who at the time was one of the best players in the world and he just couldn't settle. When you talk about a young player the factors that stand in their way of being United Quality players increase. And as these player don't have any pedigree to fall back on if they don't make it then they will almost always be sold at a loss (And even if you get your money back when you take into account the players signing bonus and wages you have still lost money on the player). You are betting on talent which is always risky.

If the policy was to be cheap they would be going for safer transfers, players around 24 and have proven themselves as being solid and dependable but aren't spectatular. Players who stand a great chance of being good squad players but if they fail still have enough about them to get most if not all your money back because they are still have many years left to play.

Post 2
---------------

2) Yergen mentions a few things but there are also a few none cash items included in those costs that are basically just accounting practices which actually help save money. In corporation tax alone the club has saved 89million thanks to none cash items on the books such as Goodwill.

The figure also doesn't take into account previous costs compared to new costs. If you spend more in one area but make savings in another is that actually an added cost? Not only are there savings in the things like Coporation tax BUT there are savings being made in areas such as listing fees that are PLC specific

3) United Cash flow isn't being used to pay off the Glazers debts. The only way the clubs money can be used to do this is indirectly through dividends that the Glazers are entitled to take as owners. Why do so many people seem to think that club owners should throw hundreds of millions at a club a season and get nothing back.

4) Last summer Valencia rejected £45mill from both Real and Barca and Tevez (or should I say Kia) wanted to chase the money and started playing silly buggers due to not getting enough playing time. He was offered a deal, a deal that would have seen him being the highest paid player at the club despite him being a backup player. When you have City putting a second bid of £30mill in for Milner you know there is no value in the market and in that kind of market you have to spend on the right players not just buying for the sake of buying.

And if we had bought Villa for £50mill who is to say he would have helped. We can't say he will have been suited to the English game, there is a better record for players going EPL to La Liga than La Liga to the EPL. And even if he had fitted in would that have forced us to play differently and then not gotten anywhere near the level we got out of Rooney. And he could have got Injured for some of the run in just like most of our striker options did.

We have to trust SAF and the whole backroom and scouting team to use their vast knowledge to decide which players have value to the club, as we know he felt Benzema at the 30-35mill range did have value but when Real came in before a deal with the player could be struck it was pointless as the player had stated he would like to join Real

@redscot
My posts aren't all over the place. Its just that either you don't have the mental capacity or the desire to actually understand.

The problem with you as shown with some of your comments and wanting yes no answers is that you want whats the complex world of business finance reduced to a few 'sound bites'. Its easy to simplify is from an Anti-Glazer pov but not so easy if you want to bring balance to these 'sound bites'

Anyway

Q1: No, we are £506mill in debt
Q2: No, its in the ballpark of £260 unless you are throwing in none cash costs

Except I haven't agreed with a SINGLE comment you have made. Here you are either acting like a twat on purpose or being too simple to comprhend anything past simple yes and no.

The world isn't black and white so things are more complex than yes and no's but accepting and understanding that would require you to act like an intelligent adult and not a 5 year old kid who thinks its big and smart to be part of a propaganda campaign that relies on more and more outragous claims.

People like you will be the ruin of the club NOT the Glazers and that's really sad because while there is a lot of complexity to the issue getting a lot of the basic facts right rather than forming your opinion on exagerations, rumours and lies. As a group United fans could be taken seriously by the ownership and we could help make the club better BUT when we have groups like MUST willing to spread the lies to get support and people like yourself willing to make us all look like idiotic inbreds that's never going to happen.

@ wakey £260 it's not pounds what cant you get ITS FUCKING MILLIONS.
When you care to type sensibly and get it through yer fucking think skull I will react.
Accept you are beaten and cant defend the defenceless

See this is where idiots like you keep falling down in your arguments. You are so one sided you ignore the FACTS.

Yes they have paid £260mill in Interest fees but they haven't lost the club £260mill.

We can immedialy remove 89mill from that in the Coporation Tax savings they have made. So thats down to £171mill immediately. Then we have the £100mill in Dividends they have been entitled to but have passed on which reduces it to £71mill. They have then vastly increased revenues so much of that can be covered.

And at the end of the day the way the buy out was done we effectivly have two owners, the Glazers with their 400mill investment and the bank (now bond holders) with their 500mill investment.Owners of any business are due a return and that's what the interest is, if the Glazers had of funding the 500mill part themselves they would be expecting such returns as well.

With Chelsea Abramovich had before preferntial share linked to the 700mill 'loan', do you seriously think he isn't taking a major dividend on that (Even if the Preferential shares are only paying back at 5% that's £35mill a season, they are unlikely to pay out les than this and probally pay out more) and since Jan the debt for equity swap has increased the number of preferential shares.

At the end of the day no matter how much you want to put things into Black and White things aren't. As everyone who you would label pro Glazer has said they aren't perfect, there are concerns with the but the vilify them the way that is being done is over the top and isn't helpful to anyone but those who want to damage the club for their own agendas.

@Wakey, This is my final post to you on this matter IN This thread.
Start with the truth regards the interest and "management service" charges the actual total! not some imaginary figure you are plucking out of somwhere.
FFs corporation tax is paid on profit, its got sweet FA to do with "costs" Which part of that is the Interest they have exposed us to reduces the profit which Manchester United achieved.
The dividend is a stupid arguement and only illustrates your ignorance, it is not relevant as it still is a drain on the funds that are retained in liquidity.
Vastly increased revenues are you being serious I think you need to check or recheck the facts.
What the fuck are you speaking about,"Owners of any buisness are due a return and thats what the interest is" what utter and total rubbish.Owners of a normal buisness achieve there return from the profits attained and Salaries recieved throughout the financial term and dividends on shares as a result said level of profit!
Your other point regards the "Two owners is hideous" Who set up the 2nd owner, is that "said" second owner not being paid in the form of Interest for the "said" loan.
The rest of your post is meaningless its like comparing Apples and Pears and only for your benifit, clouds the already muddy waters.
Thank you for calling me an Idiot, that is really helpfull, I wont type actually what I really think of you, let my post do that .

Remind me again how old are you? You have refered to the fact that you are young and i'm going to put some of your stupid comments down to you having never lived in the real world.

Anyway I haven't plucked any imaginary figures out of the air. All my figures have been documented and many of them even backed up in this thread by 'anti glazer' people.

The interest fees are £260mill. The Management fees come to £13mill. The management fees are actually common business fees that you will find in any business for certain tasks carried out by the owner and directors are paid for through this accounting entry.

On corporation tax, please explain to me how you think costs are in no way connected to this. What is profit again, oh yeah its REVENUE MINUS COST. When you can make none cash write offs in the accounts, such as Goodwill then you in effect generate money by reducing things like tax liability

As for your comment on owners, its shows a MAJOR lack of understanding on how things work. Unless you are running a company at the most basic level (ie a sole trader) the profits that are made DO NOT belong to you but to the company. As the owner (or for that matter usually anyone listed as a director) you make your money from 'Fees for services' (either as management fees OR wages. If its wages you will often just get a 'Token Wage' however for accounting purposes) and from DIVIDENDS. Dividends can either be profit based OR can be 'preferential' and paid out before anything else and at a set rate.

As for "The dividend is a stupid arguement and only illustrates your ignorance, it is not relevant as it still is a drain on the funds that are retained in liquidity". How is choosing to forgo their due dividends not relevant. By passing on it they are effectivly reinvesting this money back into the club so are making a PERSONAL contribution towards paying the Interest.

Additionally the latest coming out of Glazer camp is that they have PASSED on taking the initial 70mill they are allowed under the Bond issue. They might still take it later but if that turns out to be true that's hardly the actions of people looking to 'leech' now is it. Its also a sign that they have a plan and its going along as it should do as I'm sure even those of us trying to bring balance to the discussion felt they would have taken the 70mill already and it would show in Fridays quarterly results as it seemed the sensiable thing to do BUT if the reports coming out of the Glazer camp are true then they must be comfortable with the amount of personal debt they have and their ability to cover it. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/davidbond/2010/05/glazers_in_no_rush_to_pay_off.html)

As for saying my other points just muddy the water, only if you are trying to be blinkered. How things operate elsewhere both in the world of football and the wider business world are relevant as it bring CONTEXT to points and figures.

@ Wakey. 18, Your comment lost it for me, its a lad thats looking for reaction and comment.
Your post mate" owners of any buisness are due a return and thats what the interest is" .
Get outta here. roflmao.
When you learn you will collectively get it.Yer a fucking joke and not worth my time or care.
As I said and learn and digest, I read all posts carefully and take inwardly .
I am Scottish and no Cunts fool.
Trust this is a zero end for you!

Addios Amigos and all that Mexicain dingo dando tripe, I got better things to play with in my love nest..... lmao.
Cheers who tried maybe when you get your facts str8 get a new conversition,( proddie) pmsl.
Come on United, just believe, fucking lets hope so.
Am gonna try and replicate me, in the image of Nani. Wonderous thoughts.